Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758041AbYG3QMf (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:12:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753046AbYG3QMZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:12:25 -0400 Received: from mail.ocs.com.au ([202.134.241.204]:21084 "EHLO mail.ocs.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752929AbYG3QMY (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:12:24 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 (debian 1:2.7.2-12) with nmh-1.2 From: Keith Owens To: Andrew Morton cc: Simon Horman , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tony Luck Subject: Re: [patch] IA64: only call up() in salinfo_work_to_do() if down_trylock() was successful In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:43:29 MST." <20080730024329.404eccc3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 02:12:21 +1000 Message-ID: <20945.1217434341@ocs10w> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2436 Lines: 59 Andrew Morton (on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:43:29 -0700) wrote: >On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:07:45 +1000 Simon Horman wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:47:09PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: >> > Simon Horman (on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:47:20 +1000) wrote: >> > >Aesthetic issues aside is it safe to call up() if down_trylock() failed? >> > > >> > >arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c: In function `salinfo_work_to_do': >> > >arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c:195: warning: ignoring return value of `down_trylock' >> > > >> > >Signed-off-by: Simon Horman >> > > >> > >Index: linux-2.6/arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c >> > >=================================================================== >> > >--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c 2008-07-29 19:06:33.000000000 +1000 >> > >+++ linux-2.6/arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c 2008-07-29 19:40:02.000000000 +1000 >> > >@@ -192,8 +192,8 @@ struct salinfo_platform_oemdata_parms { >> > > static void >> > > salinfo_work_to_do(struct salinfo_data *data) >> > > { >> > >- down_trylock(&data->mutex); >> > >- up(&data->mutex); >> > >+ if (down_trylock(&data->mutex) == 0) >> > >+ up(&data->mutex); >> > > } >> > > >> > > static void >> > >> > NAK. The whole point of this function is to set the mutex to the up >> > state, irrespective of whether it was already down or not. Tracking >> > the state of data->mutex in all the possible contexts is just too >> > fragile, especially since it can be modified from NMI context. >> > salinfo_work_to_do() ensures that the mtuex ends in the up state. > >boggle. I daren't look. > >> > To remove the warning, just stick '(void)' in front of down_trylock(). >> >> Thanks, will do. >> > >For gawd's sake add a comment there too. You mean like the comment that is already in there? /* Kick the mutex that tells user space that there is work to do. Instead of * trying to track the state of the mutex across multiple cpus, in user * context, interrupt context, non-maskable interrupt context and hotplug cpu, * it is far easier just to grab the mutex if it is free then release it. * * This routine must be called with data_saved_lock held, to make the down/up * operation atomic. */ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/